Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 100 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Polyester Knitted Fabric - Rejection of transaction value - enhancement in the transaction value for the purpose of collection of duty, set aside - enhancement is made on the basis of DRI alert with reference to some NIDB data - HELD THAT - At the time of hearing that Revenue has not served the copy of relevant material, it wanted to use against the respondent importer, for enhancement in the transaction value. Thus, the respondent / importer had no opportunity to meet the allegations of Revenue, for finalisation of the proposed enhancement made at the time of provisional assessment, even at the finalisation stage of the same - such action of Revenue is totally against the principles of natural justice. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL 1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT , have laid down in its ruling that the Adjudicating Authority, if it wants to use any material collected behind the back of the assessee for the purpose of assessment, the Authority is bound to put assessee to notice by serving copy and giving sufficient opportunity to rebut the same. In absence of such notice the assessment order was held to be untenable and set aside - in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills is squarely applicable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the appeal of the Respondent-importer, setting aside the enhancement in transaction value based on DRI alert and NIDB data. - Whether the Revenue's rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and subsequent enhancement based on DRI alert circular was justified. - Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Revenue in finalizing the assessment without providing relevant material to the importer. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the enhancement in transaction value for duty collection, which was based on a DRI alert referencing NIDB data. The Revenue had objected to the declared transaction value of 'Polyester Knitted Fabric' by the importer, proposing an enhancement range of US$2.80 to 05.15 per kg. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, directing the acceptance of the declared transaction value, citing the need for correctness. Additionally, directions were given to address the issue of concessional CVD in line with a Supreme Court ruling. 2. The second issue revolved around the justification of the Revenue's actions in rejecting the transaction value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and subsequently enhancing it based on the DRI alert circular. The Revenue finalized the assessment without providing the importer with the relevant documents used to reject the transaction value, citing the absence of further inputs from the importer. The enhancement was made under Rule 9 - residual method and the DRI alert circular, raising the value from $1.60 to US$2.80 per kg. 3. The final issue addressed the violation of natural justice principles by the Revenue in finalizing the assessment without providing the relevant material to the importer for rebuttal. The Tribunal noted that the importer was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations made by the Revenue, as the relevant material was not served. This action was deemed against the principles of natural justice, citing a Supreme Court ruling that requires the Adjudicating Authority to provide the assessee with the material used for assessment and an opportunity to rebut it. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the impugned order-in-appeal that favored the importer. The decision was based on the violation of natural justice principles by the Revenue, as the importer was not provided with the relevant material for rebuttal. The importer was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.
|